Commonwealth v. Usciak

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Usciak

294 A.2d 765, 222 Pa. Super. 235, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1267

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 15, 1972

DocketAppeal, No. 845

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 294 A.2d 765 (Commonwealth v. Usciak) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Usciak, 294 A.2d 765, 222 Pa. Super. 235, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1267 (Pa. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Oueiam,

Contrary to appellant’s position, this case does not present the interesting and difficult question of whether this Court should approve the whimsical ruse of a policeman who dressed himself as a fireman in order to have a door of a home opened without being subjected to any delay in carrying out a search warrant.¹ The record does not show that the reason the defendant opened the door was because he thought a fireman was seeMng admittance.

The defendant testified that he did not open the door but that it was jerked open by the officer. The two officers involved testified that the door had been opened by the defendant. The court below was not bound to accept the defendant’s version, and there was no evidence that the ruse caused the defendant to open the door.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion

Pee Oueiam,

Contrary to appellant’s position, this case does not present the interesting and difficult question of whether this Court should approve the whimsical ruse of a policeman who dressed himself as a fireman in order to have a door of a home opened without being subjected to any delay in carrying out a search warrant.¹ The record does not show that the reason the defendant opened the door was because he thought a fireman was seeMng admittance.

The defendant testified that he did not open the door but that it was jerked open by the officer. The two officers involved testified that the door had been opened by the defendant. The court below was not bound to accept the defendant’s version, and there was no evidence that the ruse caused the defendant to open the door.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.2d 765, 222 Pa. Super. 235, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-usciak-pa-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack